ID: aiam3078

Dear Mr. Lyford: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of m office when you telephoned on June 4, 1979, on behalf of your clients who intend to manufacture auxiliary gasoline tanks, to sell the tanks as part of a universal kit with all parts necessary for installation, and in some instances to install the tanks in vehicles. you inquired as to the meaning of the word 'integrity' as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75 (49 CFR 571.301-75) and the applicability of the standard to your clients' proposed activities. You also inquired as to the meaning of the phrase 'render inoperative' as used in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act) and its applicability to your clients' proposed activities.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, is a vehicle standard that applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. The word 'integrity' as used in FMVSS 301-75, refers to the fact that compliance with the standard requires that fuel spillage from a vehicle subjected to a fixed or moving barrier crash not exceed the limits established by FMVSS 301-75, S5.5 and S5.6.; Since FMVSS 301-75 is only a vehicle standard and does not specif performance standards for fuel tanks, it does not directly apply to your clients' proposed manufacturing activities. However, as will be discussed later, it does apply when an auxiliary fuel tank is installed in a vehicle by either the manufacturer of the tank or other persons specified in the Act.; Despite the lack of a specifically applicable safety standard auxiliar fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. The defect responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151-153) authorize the Secretary of Transportation (or his delegate the NHTSA Administrator) to make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer of the equipment to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. In addition, these provisions also require that a manufacturer who discovers a safety-related defect in his product notify the Secretary of Transportation (or NHTSA Administrator) and then provide notification and remedy to purchasers. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(A) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.; Since auxiliary gasoline tanks are items of motor vehicle equipment, a defined in section 102(4) of the Act, your clients as manufacturers of such equipment would be required to provide notification and remedy should their auxiliary gasoline tanks prove to be defective in design, materials, manufacture, or performance. (See 49 CFR Part 597).; FMVSS 301-75 would apply to your client's installation of auxiliar fuel tanks in new motor vehicles. Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with the safety standrds (sic) applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone, for purposes other than resale. The purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate customer. Any person who, prior to the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, alters that vehicle by making more than minor finishing operations, is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all safety standards applicable to it. Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act).; Under these provisions, your clients would be considered to be alterer if they installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, and they would be required to recertify the vehicle as complying with applicable safety standards, including FMVSS 301-75. With respect to FMVSS 301-75, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary tank added by an alterer must meet them also.; It should also be noted that the defect responsibilities imposed b Section 151 *et seq*., mentioned earlier with respect to the defective design, composition, manufacture or performance of auxiliary tanks also apply to safety defects in the installation of such tanks in new vehicles. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation. Acting, as both manufacturers and installers of the tanks, your clients would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both the production and installation of the tanks.; FMVSS 301-75 as well as the 'render inoperative' provisions of sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply to your clients' activities in installing auxiliary gasoline tanks in used vehicles. After the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle (referred to here as a used vehicle) is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....<<<; The words 'render inoperative,' in the context of section 108(a)(2)(A) in essence prohibit certain listed entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards.; A listed person or entity found to have violated section 108(a)(2)(A would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Should your clients begin producing auxiliary gasoline tanks they woul be encompassed by the term 'manufacturer' as that term is used in section 108(a)(2)(A) and defined in section 102(5) of the Act. Therefore, if your clients added an auxiliary gasoline tank to a used vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 and in the process knowingly reduced the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, they would be deemed in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). Such reduction of performance could occur for example, if the gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, or if the design materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; I hope you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 17678.drn

Greg Balmer, Esq.
Staff Counsel
YMCA of the USA
101 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606

Dear Mr. Balmer:

This responds to your letter concerning dealers' refusals to sell 15-passenger vans to YMCAs that drop off and pick up school children from school. You ask for clarification of the circumstances when buses are considered "school buses" under Federal law. As explained below, a new bus sold or leased to a YMCA that will use the bus on a significant basis to transport school children to or from school is a "school bus" and must meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

Your letter states the following:

Many YMCAs offer child care and after-school programs for school-aged children and use passenger vans to either drop off or pick up the children from school. Dealers are classifying this use as one of a school bus, and are refusing to sell or lease passenger vans to YMCAs, despite the fact that YMCAs are not schools and that YMCA child care and after-school programs are, under traditional definitions, primarily custodial, and not educational, in nature.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any bus which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. A 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If a dealer sells or leases (e.g., leases on a regular or long-term basis), a new bus to transport students, the vehicle is a "school bus" and must meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA's) school bus standards. Conventional 15-passenger vans are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold or leased, as new vehicles, to carry students on a regular basis.

As you are aware, in an interpretation letter of November 20, 1978, to DeKalb Rental/Leasing, Inc. (copy enclosed), NHTSA determined that YMCAs are not schools. In instances where a new bus purchased by a YMCA is not used for transportation "to or from school," or a school-related event (e.g., if the bus will be used only for YMCA summer camps, or YMCA weekend activities where there is no transportation to or from school), a dealer would not be required to sell a school bus.

However, the situation raised in your letter is different. The pertinent issue is not whether the YMCA is a school, but whether the bus will be "significantly" used to transport school children "to or from" school (as described in Section 30125). If the bus will be used for such purpose, a school bus must be sold, regardless of whether such transportation is provided by a "school," a day care facility, or any other entity.

We find it appropriate to address whether buses are "used significantly" to transport students on a case-by-case basis, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. Your letter states that "[m]any YMCAs offer child care and after-school programs for school-aged children and use passenger vans to either drop off or pick up the children from school." Children attend school five days a week. After-school programs are presumably also offered five days a week. YMCA buses are therefore presumably providing school children with transportation to or from school five days a week or nearly at that rate. NHTSA considers such recurring and consistent use of the YMCA buses to transport students "to or from school" (even if the same students are not transported each day), to constitute a "significant" use of the vehicle. Therefore, it is our position that, when selling or leasing new buses to any child care facility (including YMCAs) for the purpose of taking students to or picking students up from school, dealers must sell or lease buses that meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "school buses."⁽¹⁾

NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 15-passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. You may want to check with state laws governing private tort liability and consult with your insurance carriers for further information on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/17/98
ref:VSA#571.3 "school bus only"

1. As you may be aware, in interpretation letters of May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 to Ms. Vel McCaslin, Director of Grace After School, an after school care program, NHTSA stated that buses used to transport children to Ms. McCaslin's program would be "school buses" only if the program is a "school or school-related event." The September 1991 letter indicated that the program picks up children from three area schools and brings them to the church on a "daily" basis. These letters concluded that Grace After School did not appear to be a "school," that the program was not a "school-related event" and that NHTSA's school bus requirements thus did not apply. NHTSA has recently reexamined the two letters to Ms. McCaslin. Upon reconsideration, we have decided that the letters to Ms. McCaslin did not focus enough on the fact that the buses were being used to transport school children "from school," as specified in 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, to the extent the May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 letters to Ms. McCaslin are inconsistent with this letter, they have been superceded.

ID: 1985-01.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Verne L. Freeland

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Verne L. Freeland P.O. Box 693652 Miami, FL 33269

This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of the Rulemaking division of this agency, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that you had developed a child restraint system which was built into the vehicle seat, and asked how to proceed to have this child restraint certified as complying with Standard No. 213. As currently written, Standard No. 213 does not accommodate your type of restraint.

A manufacturer of a child restraint system is required to certify that each child restraint system manufactured by it complies with all of the requirements of Standard No. 213, and adding a statement to that effect to the label required by section S5.5 of the Standard. This certification need not be based on actual test results; NHTSA only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what test results, engineering analysis, or other data would be sufficient to enable it to meet the due care requirement in certifying that its child restraints comply with the standard. Certainly, we would recommend that a manufacturer marketing a new child restraint design test that restraint in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard.

As you will see from the enclosed copy of Standard No. 213, Section S5.3.1 of the standard requires each child restraint system to be capable of being restrained by a type 1 seat belt system. In addition, the test procedures in section S6 specify that the child restraint is to be tested by attaching it to a standard vehicle seat solely by the vehicle seat's lap belts. Your design, which incorporates the restraint into a vehicle seat, could not be attached to a standard vehicle seat by means of lap belts.

Standard No. 213 would have to be amended in order for you to be able to certify that your child restraint satisfies all the requirements of that standard. 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) gives interested persons the right to petition this agency for amendments a safety standard, and sets forth the required contents of the petition, the address to which it should be sent, and the procedures which will be followed by the agency in evaluating the petition. If you wish, you may file such a petition. Should such a petition be granted, this agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard No. 213.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Verna L. Freeland PO Box 693652 Miami, Florida 33269 Tel(305)653-1882

July 4, 1984

Val Radovich, Safety Standards Engineer, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 5316 NRM 12, Washington, D.C., 20590

Re: Obtaining certification of "Built-In Childs Safety Seat" to U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213-80 - Child Seating Systems

Dear Mr. Radovich,

I am the inventor of a built-in childs safety seat as described and depicted in the attached copy of my pending application for U.S. Letters Patent as/also the attached illustrative pictures of miniature model of same.

In April, 1984, I submitted a copy of the patent application and pictures, together with a sales pitch, entitled 'comment' (copy attached) to each of the 19 directors of Chrysler corporation in hopes of having Chrysler manufacture and incorporate the depicted child's safety seat in their vehicles.

On May 8th 1984, as a result of the submission of such material to Chrysler, I received, signed and delivered to Chrysler a 'Suggestion Agreement' as a prerequisite which, I believed, would expedite the consideration and implementation of the invention by Chrysler. (copy attached).

On May 29, 1984, I was advised by Chrysler that the built-in childs safety seat must be certified by NHTSA to meet the requirements of U.S. Motor Vehicle Standard No. 213-80 - Child Seating Systems, before the seat could be evaluated by Chrysler. This May 29th letter from Chrysler further advised me to obtain information as to such certification by contacting NHTSA at 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., attention: Secretary Dole. (a copy of such letter is attached).

On June 4, 1984, I sent a letter to NHTSA at the address and to the attention of Secretary Dole, as advised by the letter from Chrysler. (copy of June 4th letter attached).

On July 3, 1984, having received no response to my letter of June 4th, I began telephoning to seek the requested information, commencing with first telephone call to Secretary Dole's offices, which referred me to another telephone number, which referred me to another telephone number, etc., etc., etc., which finally resulted in my being advised that you (or a member of your staff) would ultimately respond to my June 4th letter when the same had finally filtered down through the chain of command from Secretary Dole's office. (a procedure which was estimated as a 'month or two').

In view of the foregoing information, and seeking to expedite the matter, I telephoned your office and was advised to send a new letter directly to you. During such telephone conversation I attempted to describe my invention in order to secure some telephonic information as to the procedure, criteria, and time element involved in obtaining the desired certification and was advised that since my proposed seat is bolted to the regular auto seat (as a built-in integral part thereof) it did not have the required 'tether belting' necessary to meet the specifications of Standard 213-80 and hence, would probably require petition for variance or for an exemption from such requirement of the act.

Now then, Mr. Radovich, having given you all of the background information, with supporting documents, I ask for your assistance in obtaining the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible including but not limited to:

(a) Advising me as to the procedure or procedures necessary to effect certification of the depicted built-in childs safety seat.

(b) Advising me as to the necessity and, if so, the procedure for obtaining variance and/or exemption from the 'tether belt' requirement of 213-80.

(c) Advising me as to whether or not I must construct and furnish you with a full scale working model of the depicted built-in childs safety seat and, if so, where and when?

(e) Advising me as to the anticipated costs and expenses involved in obtaining certification, and

(f) Such other and further advice as you may be so kind as to suggest in order to obtain the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible.

In regard to the ultimate certification, I understand that the present certification requires that child seat safety equipment meet safety standards of a thirty (30) mile per hour impact test. It is my belief that the depicted built-in childs safety seat will meet much higher safety standards of 55 miles per hour impact, and higher. This, coupled with the elimination of injuries caused by improperly attached equipment, etc., (as suggested in the patent application and comments) may well give rise to further decreasing injuries to children in vehicles and, consequently, I am anxious to have the built-in childs safety seat tested to its maximum safety certification instead of the normal and minimal 30 miles per hour standards.

I apologize for the length of this letter but I sincerely believe that the depicted seat constitutes such a substantial improvement of the existing childs safety seats now on the market as to warrant consideration of getting it certified and on the market as soon as humanly possible.

Yours very truly,

Verne L. Freeland

xerox copy *to: R.E. Springer, Outside Suggestion Dept., Chrysler Corporation, CIMS 418-05-30, P. O. Box 1118 Detroit, Michigan, 48288

* without attachments

&: WIGMAN & COHEN, P.C., Suite 200, Crystal Square 3, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202 Serial No. 584, 402 Ref: 1589-A

ID: aiam2381

Dear Mr. Butler: Your letter of June 23, 1976, forwarding correspondence from one o your constituents, Mr. Ralph L. Lichtfuss, concerning the effect of Federal bumper requirements on insurance costs, has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by the Federal Trade Commission for reply.; Mr. Lichtfuss cites a newspaper article in which escalating insuranc rates are attributed to inflation. As an example of the inflationary impact in this area, the article's author states that the cost of the 1970 Ford LTD front bumper was $68.00, while the cost of the same component on the 1976 LTD model is $334.90. Mr. Lichtfuss asks whether Federal regulations are responsible for this cost increase and the resulting escalation in insurance premiums.; A part of the increased cost is due to Federal regulation. Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, requires that cars be capable of sustaining 5 mph barrier and pendulum impacts without experiencing damage to specified safety components. Compliance with this standard by motor vehicle manufacturers has been achieved by upgrading the vehicle bumper system. Although the new bumpers cost more, they protect vehicles during low-speed crashes far better than the old 'cosmetic' bumpers.; The higher costs are offset to a significant degree by savings i insurance costs. The insurance industry has supported the standard throughout, and currently takes the position that a weakening of the standard would increase liability costs for insured motorists and out-of-pocket expenses for those without collision insurance.; It appears from the insurance industry position, as reflected in th enclosed press release, that the Federal requirements mandating more efficient bumpers are not responsible for increases in automobile insurance rates.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 15120rea.r2

William Shapiro, P.E.
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
7 Volvo Dr.
Rockleigh, N.J. 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your April 29, 1997, letter asking whether Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," would prohibit you from producing a rear-facing child restraint for older children (weighing more than 20 pounds). You state: "Volvo strongly believes that children weighing up to 40 pounds are provided the greatest injury protection when riding in rear-facing child restraints...."

Standard 213 does not prohibit a manufacturer from recommending a rear-facing child restraint for children weighing more than 20 pounds (lb.). However, in making its certification of compliance with the standard, the manufacturer must ensure that the restraint meets the requirements of Standard 213 when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard. Under S7 of the standard, any child restraint that is recommended for use by children from birth to 40 lb. is tested with test dummies representing a newborn infant (see S7.1(a)), a 9-month-old (S7.1(b)) and a 3-year-old child (S7.1(c)).⁽¹⁾ The rear-facing restraint must be able to accommodate each of the dummies and meet the performance criteria of the standard when tested with the dummies.

I have enclosed copies of letters dated April 22, 1992, to Mark Sedlack of Century Products Company and August 18, 1992, to Timber Dick of Safeline Children's Products Company, concerning the testing of a rear-facing child restraint recommended for children weighing up to 25 lb. (Note that at the date of these letters, Standard 213 incorporated a 6-month-old child dummy and used different weight categories than the current standard. The standard was amended, effective September 1, 1996, to incorporate, inter alia, a newborn, 9-month-old and 6-year-old dummy and to delete the 6-month-old dummy. New weight categories were also adopted, e.g., the smallest dummy (infant) is used for testing a restraint recommended for children weighing up to 22 lb., rather than 20 lb.)

That the rear-facing restraint must be able to accommodate the 3-year-old dummy is explained at length in the letters. Our position has not changed. If the rear-facing child restraint does not physically permit the 3-year-old dummy to be positioned rear-facing in accordance with the dummy positioning procedures of the standard, the restraint cannot be tested in accordance with the standard and thus cannot be certified as complying with the standard. Accordingly, the restraint cannot be recommended by its manufacturer for children weighing more than 22 lb. We understand that since receiving our letters, Century and Safeline have been or will be producing convertible child restraints that are recommended for use rear-facing by children weighing up to about 30 lb. (A convertible restraint is designed for use rear-facing by infants and forward-facing by toddlers.)

You ask whether the labeling requirements of S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) and (k)(2)(i) of Standard 213 in effect require that restraints that are designed to be rear-facing with older children can only be infant or convertible restraints and cannot be "rear-facing only child restraints." The answer is no. However, we understand why you ask this; S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) specifies labeling requirements for each rear-facing child restraint system "that is designed for infants only," and S5.5.2(k)(2)(i) specifies requirements for each "child restraint system that is designed to be used rearward-facing for infants and forward facing for older children." (Emphases added.)

These paragraphs were not intended to prohibit your restraint. Until February 1995, S5.5.2(k) specified requirements for "each child restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position," which on its face included restraints such as yours. You would have been required to state either "PLACE THIS INFANT RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT IN THE VEHICLE," or "PLACE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT WITH AN INFANT WEIGHING LESS THAN (insert a weight that is not less than 20 pounds)." The language was changed in 1995 to the language quoted above in S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) and (2)(i) in response to requests to clarify and expand on the air bag warning label requirement (60 FR 7461, February 8, 1995). The change differentiated between infant-only restraints and convertibles, because those were the types of rear-facing restraints that were available at the time. The agency did not intend to limit rear-facing restraints to infant-only and convertibles.

While we agree that Standard 213 imposes no directional positioning labeling requirements for your particular system, we recommend that a rear-facing child restraint for older children should nonetheless be labeled with a warning that the restraint must be rear-facing when carrying infants, e.g., "PLACE THIS RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT WITH AN INFANT." Because your restraint is also designed for use rear-facing with older children, you should have clear labeling warning against misuse of the restraint in the forward-facing position.

We note also that under S5.5.2(k)(4) and (k)(5) of Standard 213, "each child restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position" must have the air bag warning label described in those sections. This requirement applies on its face to rear-facing only child restraints for older children. Thus, your restraint must have the label depicted in Figure 10 of Standard 213, with the pictogram and required heading and wording.

If you need further assistance, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d.7/25/97

1. Under S7 of Standard 213, a restraint that is recommended for children weighing more than 40 lb. is tested with a 6-year-old child dummy.

ID: aiam4883

"Dear Mr. Geis: This responds to your letter asking how a vehicl should be loaded when determining compliance with Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You suggested that the vehicle's loading state could influence the position and size of the vision areas. As explained below, a vehicle must comply with the vision area requirements in Standard No. 104 under each and every loading condition between and including unloaded and loaded to the maximum recommended weight. Standard No. 104 does not specify a loading condition for the development of vision areas, nor does SAE Recommended Practice J903a (May 1966), presently incorporated by reference into the Standard. Furthermore, there is no mention of the vehicle loading condition in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 104. Since no loading condition is specified in the standard, the question arises whether the absence of loading conditions means that a vehicle complies with Standard No. 104 if it complies with the vision area requirements at any single loading condition between unloaded and fully loaded or whether the vehicle must comply with the vision area requirements at every loading condition between unloaded and fully loaded. NHTSA has recently discussed this issue at length in an October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc. (copy enclosed). As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions can only be overcome if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions. Applying this test to the vision area requirements in Standard No. 104, we begin with the presumption that the vision area requirements must be met under all loading conditions. We must then examine the standard as a whole and its purposes to see if there are any indications of an intention to limit Standard No. 104 to a particular loading condition or conditions. Nothing in the language of Standard No. 104 suggests an intention to limit the standard to a particular vehicle loading condition. In fact, there is some indication in the language of the standard that it's requirements are intended to be met irrespective of loading condition (see sections S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3). Moreover, the purpose of the standard, to ensure driver visibility by requiring wiper systems to clear a specific portion of the windshield, is only served if the wiper system functions adequately at all loading conditions. Therefore, since the language and purpose of Standard No. 104 indicate no intention to limit the standard's requirements to a particular vehicle loading condition, the presumption that a wiper system must comply at all loading conditions stands. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 2865o

Mr. R. H. Madison
12814 Asbury Drive
Ft. Washington, MD 20744

Dear Mr. Madison:

This responds to your March 31, 1988, letter asking for our interpretation of Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, as it applies to a seat installed in a multipurpose passenger vehicle and equipped with a safety belt. You attached a sketch of your seat and asked whether the safety belt assembly is considered to be attached to the seat. You asked this question in order to determine whether the seat would be subject to the specified forces of paragraph S4.2(c) of the standard. The answer is that NHTSA considers the assembly to be attached to the seat.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the facts provided in your letter. In this regard, I want to note that rendering an opinion in this case was complicated by the fact that your sketch does not show the seat structure and its interrelationship with the vehicle structure and belt anchorage.

In your letter, you refer to a vehicle having a "Belt Attachment Frame" made from steel members attached to the vehicle's structure. You said that,

"(r)esting on the Belt Attachment Frame is a plywood deck... The seat cushion rests on but is not otherwise attached to the deck. The seat belt attachments pass through the deck and are secured to the Belt Attachment Frame. Other portions of the seat or its supporting structure might rest on and contact the Belt Attachment Frame and might extend to or beyond it. However, except for the deck, no part of the seat or its structural members would be attached to the Belt Attachment Frame." (Emphasis added.)

The answer to your question depends on whether the Belt Attachment Frame is considered part of the seat. Based on the information you provide, we conclude that the Belt Attachment Frame is part of the seat itself. According to your letter, the deck for the seat cushion is attached to and supported by the Belt Attachment Frame; it appears that the Belt Attachment Frame is a necessary and functional part of the seat structure. Since we interpret the Belt Attachment Frame to be a part of the seat, and since the seat belt assembly loads will be transferred to the Frame in the event of a crash, we consider the seat belt assembly to be attached to the seat, for purposes of testing the seat under S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:207 d:6/30/88

ID: aiam0863

Dear Mr. Yeoman: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'.; You ask whether mattress stuffing must meet the requirements of th Standard. Paragraph S4.1 of the Standard lists mattress covers only. This does not include the mattress stuffing.; You also ask whether the stuffing in a 'dual purpose passenger seat must meet the requirements of the Standard. Paragraph S4.1 includes 'seat cushions' and 'seat backs'. Since the Standard does apply to the filling material in seat cushions and seat backs, the stuffing in a 'dual purpose passenger seat' must also meet the requirements of the Standard even though it may be converted into a bed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5472

Dear Ms. Mann: This responds to your letter of September 15, 1994, t Patrick Boyd of this agency. As he has told you, we did not receive a copy of it until around November 9. You ask for confirmation of your understanding of the conspicuity requirements of S5.7.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to large boat trailers, based upon a meeting you had with him and Taylor Vinson of this Office earlier in the summer. We have paraphrased your concerns for conciseness in our discussion which follows. Side treatment 1. Paragraph S5.1.1.9 allows a double-faced clearance lamp to be mounted at or near the midpoint of wide boat trailers to indicate the extreme width. Paragraph S5.7.1.4, in essence, prohibits retroreflective material from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp. While the closest edge of the fender-mounted lamp will be further than 75 mm from the body-mounted retroreflective material, when viewed from the side the separation distance vanishes and the material appears next to the lamp. You asked whether this configuration complies with Standard No. 108. NHTSA regards this configuration as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 since the actual physical distance between the closest edge of the lamp and the material is more than 75 mm. But the more important point is that the spacing of side conspicuity material is a consideration only for required side lamps. The amber lamp in question is a front clearance lamp and the proximity of side facing reflectors has no effect on its visibility from the side. 2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires that the material cover at least half the trailer length and that it be distributed as even as practicable. For purposes of calculating the 50 percent minimum, you asked whether the following two applications are acceptable: a) The sheeting can be on the angled portion of the trailer that is the tongue, regardless of its effect on the reflectivity of the tape when viewed from the side. NHTSA has traditionally included the trailer tongue in determining the overall length of the vehicle for compliance purposes. Therefore, sheeting applied to the trailer tongue may be used in calculating the 50 percent minimum. (b) The sheeting need not all be on the same horizontal plane. This is correct. If a manufacturer applies sheeting to the tongue and fender in fulfilling the 50% minimum obligation, the material need not be at the same height as the other sheeting on the trailer. However, wherever applied, each discrete portion of sheeting must be mounted as horizontal as practicable. Rear Treatment 1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1 specifies the application of three Elements of sheeting to the rear of trailers. However, it excuses container chassis and platform trailers without bulkheads from being equipped with Element 2 treatment, and trailers without underride protection devices from the requirements of Element 3. You asked whether NHTSA would also excuse boat trailers without bulkheads in the same manner as platform trailers, requiring compliance only with Element 1. This is correct. The configuration of a boat trailer without a bulkhead is essentially that of a platform trailer, and it may also be exempted from providing Element 2 conspicuity treatment. Due to their low heights, boat trailers are not equipped with rear underride devices, and those trailers without underride devices are excluded from the requirement for providing Element 3 treatment. 2. Element 1 retroreflective material is to be applied 'across the full width of the trailer' but under paragraph S5.7.1(a) it need not be applied to 'items of equipment such as door hinges and lamp bodies.' There is a cross member at the rear which will have conspicuity treatment across the full width, however, mounting brackets attached to the cross member obscure portions of the conspicuity treatment. You asked for confirmation that this configuration is in accordance with Standard No. 108. The exclusionary term 'items of equipment' is not limited to the two examples cited in S5.7.1(a), door hinges and lamp bodies. We believe that any equipment to which it is impracticable to apply retroreflective material may be excluded from the requirement. You have not included any pictures of the mounting brackets, but this will confirm that NHTSA regards the mounting brackets as 'items of equipment' to which the treatment need not be applied, if it is impracticable to apply material to it. In this event, application of conspicuity treatment across the full width of the cross member meets Standard No. 108 even if the subsequently added mounting brackets without treatment obscure part of it. 3. Does NHTSA interpret 'full width of the trailer' to include the rear of the fender assembly, so as to require the application of conspicuity treatment to it? You asked for confirmation that the phrase applies only to the rear of the frame. NHTSA has defined 'overall vehicle width' to exclude flexible fender extensions, but it has not adopted a definition for 'full width.' We understand from your first question, on the centrally mounted clearance lamp, that boat trailer fenders will be located at or near the center of the trailer rather than at the rear. Under this circumstance, we interpret 'full width' to include only the vehicle structure at the rear end of the trailer, including its frame and rear cross members. 4. With respect to the relative location of the edge of retroreflective sheeting to the edge of required lamps, S5.7.1.4(b) prohibits white sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp whether red or amber, while S5.7.1.4(c) prohibits red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required amber lamp only. You asked for confirmation 'that the edge of the red portion of the sheeting may abut a rear identification lamp but that the white portion of the sheeting must be at lease (sic) 3mm (sic) from those lamps.' (We believe you mean 3 inches). This is correct. S5.7.1.4(c) does not prohibit red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm (3 inches) to the red rear identification lamp, and the two may abut. However, S5.7.1.4(b) does not allow the edge of white sheeting to be closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of the identification lamp. Finally, you have asked for confirmation of your understanding 'that it is not acceptable for trailer manufacturers to give rolls of reflexive sheeting tape and instructions to dealers regarding its application. Rather, the sheeting must be installed at the factory.' We confirm your understanding. The manufacturer of the trailer is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon its completion and before its delivery for introduction into interstate commerce. As this certification includes compliance with S5.7 of Standard No. 108, the conspicuity treatment must be applied as part of the manufacturing process and not delegated to dealers. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel;

ID: 1985-02.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. David Hawkins

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician Failure Analysis Associates 10899 Kinghyrst, Suite 245 Houston, Texas 77099

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You asked whether buses are excluded from the requirements of section S4.2, section S4.3, and/or the static testing procedures of section S5. You also asked whether there are any other standards which provide criteria for the testing of seating systems on buses.

Section S2 of Standard No. 207 provides that the standard applies to buses (among other vehicle types). Section S4.2, General performance requirements, provides that "(w)hen tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand" specified forces. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.2. However, the driver's seat on a bus is not excluded from the requirements of that section. The testing procedures of section S5 are only relevant to seats which are subject to the general performance requirements of section S4.2.

Similarly, section S4.5, Restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs, provides that "(e)except for a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants, a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall" meet specified requirements. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.3. Assuming that a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back were provided for the driver, it would not be excluded from the requirements of that section unless it had a back that was adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.

With respect to your last question, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, specifies criteria for the testing of school bus passenger seats. That standard is not applicable to buses other than school buses. The agency does not have any other standards which provide criteria for testing seating systems of buses.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Failure Analysis Associates

March 6, 1985 Mr. Steve Wood Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Our File No. HS30089

Dear Mr. Wood:

In regard to our recent phone conversation, I am sending this following list of questions pertaining to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207. This standard deals specifically with seating systems--passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The purpose and scope of this standard is to "establish requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact".

1. Am I correct in assuming that buses are excluded from: the general performance requirements (S4.2), restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs (S4.3), and also excluded from the static testing procedures outlined in (S5)?

2. If buses are indeed excluded from all of the above, are there any other standards which provide criteria for the testing (visual, static, or dynamic) of seating systems on buses?

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician RDH:cdk